Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

I have been taught that since this is articular and it is also an abstract adjective that it is to be taken as a substantive. Greek does this quite a bit, especially with the word good... Î±Î³Î±Î¸Î¿Ï‚ it is not uncommon to see ÏŒ Î±Î³Î±Î¸Î¿Ï‚ and know that it means, the good (one) or the good (man) cf. with Luke 6:45 it has the good man brings about good (things), Luke 10:42, Luke 12:18, Luke 16:25.

Hmmmmmm... I just noticed that Luke does this a lot, which makes me wonder if this is even better Attic Greek than Koine Greek......anyone, anyone?? (William perhaps??) Maybe someone far more qualified than I can weigh in on this.

I've previously failed to make the point in the Academy that there is no such thing as pure good or pure evil. I don't really feel the need to go into that again, but the concept of pure evil seems a rather abstract idea to me. Unfortunately I don't have any Greek grammars at hand here at the moment, but all Greek and Latin grammars I've worked through emphasize that the languages did not have a high level of abstraction. 'evil' seems a very abstract concept to me, not something that is actually encountered in real life.

"ponhros" (sorry I don't know how to do the greek alphabet here!) is of course a word much older than the NT. As you are well aware, the Greek Gods had both good and bad qualitities. None were pure good or pure evil. This adds to my thinking that the word never had such strong connotations.

In addition, and this purely a religious view point perhaps ill placed in this forum, I think that if you analyse the whole prayer (perhaps indeed the whole of Jesus' preachings) that all lines relate to an inner peace, not a defence from external forces.

The first part is the introduction, a somewhat traditional calling upon God and naming some of his attributes. (the Iliad is full of them I believe)

Second there is the call for physical assistance: 'daily bread' (sorry I don't literrally know the English translation having been raised in Holland). Of course a certainty of a daily food supply is a great peace of mind.

Third come the requests for mental assistance:
a) forgive us our debts as we forgive those of others. Have you ever held a grudge or ever known that someone (certainly God) had a grudge against you? I think this greatly interferes with your peace of mind.
b) do not lead us into temptations. All sorts of temptations arise that interfere with what you know is morally right or wrong. Giving into temptations will often interfere with your peace of mind.
c) deliver us from 'ponhros'. As I said, I believe this means anger. IF you have selfcontrol and don't get angry and frustrated at all sorts of things you will have a much greater peace of mind.

Fourth comes a declaration of trust in the goodness/greatness of God. Knowing that you are safe for the future because of your trust in God and his power for eternity is once more a great peace of mind.

In summary, I think the whole prayer relates to inner peace but only asks for assistance in doing so. I really don't believe that Jesus preached that we should hide in the corner so taht the 'Evil one' doesn't jump on us. I think it is about seeking help from God to have the inner strength to a be a peaceful, calm and thereby good person, taking responsibility for your own actions. If you sin, ie. transgress your conscience, it's not a matter of the Evil One pushing you this way or that but of giving in the 'bad' traits of human nature, grudges, temptations and anger.

So you change the definition of the word so that it fits your reasoning.
No can do.
There are all sorts of words for abstract ideas. A very common one is love. I don't think you would suggest to change that one to something like goodwill would you?
(BTW, the Lord's prayer is not meant to create inner peace but it is to show our thankfulness and dependency to God and to ask for what ever it is that we may need to serve him. To have our sins forgiven puts us into a proper relationship with God again. Granted, that causes inner peace, but inner peace is not the goal.)

First of all Bert, if I have offended you by my post then my apologies. It is not my intention to offend anyone.

Bert wrote:So you change the definition of the word so that it fits your reasoning.No can do.

How have I changed the definition? What is the definition of "ponhros"? (and if you say 'evil', can you define that for me too?)

There are all sorts of words for abstract ideas. A very common one is love. I don't think you would suggest to change that one to something like goodwill would you?

Well no. But I think - and I am only stating my opinion here - that love, goodwill, anger, jealousy are things that are commonly experienced. Depending on the definition you attributed to "evil" however, I think this is a much higher level of abstraction and not something that actually exists. Naturally this all depends on the definition of 'evil' again.

(BTW, the Lord's prayer is not meant to create inner peace but it is to show our thankfulness and dependency to God and to ask for what ever it is that we may need to serve him. To have our sins forgiven puts us into a proper relationship with God again. Granted, that causes inner peace, but inner peace is not the goal.)

On this point I cannot but disagree with you. However I have no intention to 'convert' you.

Bert wrote:I can't define it as well as Bauer, Thayer or Liddell. If you were to check them out you can see the development of the word from mild to quite strong. Harassed by hard work, hardship, sick, bad, wicked, consious wickedness. Anger is not in there.

Nor Evil .

However I don't think this really changes my point of view. If we are to be delivered from wickedness, the question remains whose wickedness we are to be delivered from. I suppose there are 3 possible answers:

1) my own;
2) anothers; or
3) wickedness in general, including that of myself and others.

In this light I choose option 3, but base this choice on the peace of mind idea.

In any event, "Evil One" seems odd to me as a translation. Wouldn't 'Satana' have been used? Are there other examples in the gospels of the devil being called o( ponhro/s?

Kasper wrote: Are there other examples in the gospels of the devil being called o( ponhro/s?

Some of these my be open to interpretation but some are quite clear.
All are worth taking a look at.
Matthew 5:37, 13:19 and 38, John 17:15. (Also one in Luke but it has the same context as the current topic.)
Other places in the Bible: 1 John 2:13 and 14, 1 John 3:12, 1 John 5:18 and 19, Eph. 6:16.

IreneY wrote: However, does it really make all that much difference? I mean since the abstract meaning of evil (not as in Satanic) existed from the ancient times and since in the Christian faith all evil, wickedness, malicious cunning has its roots in Satan, what is the difference?

I think the difference is; Do we ask to be delivered from the power of the Devil (deliver us from the evil one) or from bad situations, sickness, accidents, losing your job etc.(deliver us from evil)

oh! Whoops! I didn't realise it! In this case I'd say "evil" especially since the general meaning of PONHROS has never been that (the second one I mean: sickness etc) and because of the ALLA before this sentence.

Kopio wrote:Hmmmmm.....I don't think I'd buy that. I mean, take a look at the Book of Job, which is generally considered to be the oldest book in the TaNaK. A personal Devil is quite evident in that. Same with Isaiah fiftysomething (don't ask me the exact chapter), it seems to point to a personal Devil, as does the Creation narrative. Do you remember where you read it by chance??

I see. When was Job written? Could it not be post-Babylonian captivity?

I am, of course, suggesting Zoroastrian dualism as the ground of a Satan.

I read it in a book by the ever-insightful Denis de Rougemont called "The Devil's Share" (he is best known for "Love in the Western World.") It was a passing remark. But there seems to be plenty of scholarship around that suggests such an origin for the Jewish Satan.

Paul wrote:I see. When was Job written? Could it not be post-Babylonian captivity?

I am, of course, suggesting Zoroastrian dualism as the ground of a Satan.

Rather than spend a lot of time typing I will simply refer you here and make it easy

Paul wrote:I read it in a book by the ever-insightful Denis de Rougemont called "The Devil's Share" (he is best known for "Love in the Western World.") It was a passing remark. But there seems to be plenty of scholarship around that suggests such an origin for the Jewish Satan.

Which doesn't really suprise me at all. I have never read de Rougemont. I know there are so many theories about what was written when though.....some scholars will place any book of the TaNaK at almost any point in the 1st Millenium BC. I know of authors who push the Pentateuch forward to post exhilic times. The problem with that though, is that the Hebrew of the Pentateuch is fairly distinctive and can be pigeon holed down to a very early date. It has to do with a waw that is added as a suffix....something along those lines. It is a very distinctice form that is only found in early Classical Hebrew. I know I studied it in Hebrew several years ago....I could dig my class notes out, but that would take far too much effort.

FWIW.....my neck is still bugging me....I don't get it! I think I might run to the chiropractor today.

All of a sudden it occurred to me that, like Greek, Dutch also uses the article with an adjective. English needs a noun but Greek and Dutch don't.
I was wondering how to explain this to you, Kasper, but then I remembered that you are Dutch as well. Matthew 6:13. maar verlos ons van den boze.
I don't think it is possible to explain 'den boze' as 'boze dingen' but a specific well known 'boze something/someone'. (If it is a specific something, I wouldn't know what thing.)
Maybe I am guilty of transferring Dutch grammar to Greek, but the similarity is very real.

Indeed you are right about 'van den boze'. I've also heard it translated as 'van het boze'. ('Het' is of course the neuter article, and 'den / de' male or female).

I'm not too sure how important the article is in the current context. For one thing, tou~ can be both neuter and male. We don't know whether we are looking at o( ponhro/s or to ponhro/n.

By coincidence I was reading Exodus 6:6 on the train to work this morning in the Septuaginta. I still don't know how to type in a Greek font, so forgive me for the horror of typing it this way, but it says, inter alia:

r(usomai u(ma~s ek th~s doulei/as.

Of course this is not a substantive use of an adjective. But we all seem to agree that in Greek adjectives can be used substantively by the addition of an article. What this does not automatically mean, is that the substantive of the adjective in the Lord's prayer (or any other text) implies a personification of the quality described by the substantified adjective. I think you will agree that "doulei/as" is not a personification of slavery. Then why would we infer tou~ ponhrou~ in the prayer as a personification of evil and not simply as a description of human qualities?

Although I've said about all I can say on this topic, I do want to point out that the addition of the word 'thing' is often a helpful tool for translation, but it is no more than that. So to ask 'deliver us from what evil thing?" is deceptive and not proper translation.

The fact that in the excerpt from exodus the dutch bible translates it as 'their slavery' only adds to the ambiguity here. Would you translate tou~ ponhrou~ as 'his evil' or 'the evil' , or not translate the article at all because it is (arguably) only used to indicate that the adjective is used substantively?

I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.

Kasper wrote:I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.

Well, it's nice to know that you're halfway there

I was working through the Gospel of John this weekend, and I came across Jesu sand the parable of the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) Jesus says, "Î•Î³Ï‰ ÎµÎ¹Î¼Î¹ Î¿ Ï€Î¿Î¹Î¼Î·Î½ Î¿ ÎºÎ±Î»Î¿Ï‚" It made me immediately think of this passage....to me, I would translate this (hyper literally mind you) "I am the shepherd, the good one".....BTW, whether or not this is good Greek, or even an accurate translation of it will more than likely never be completely agreed upon in this thread. However, I must say from my (admitedly limited) knowledge of Hebrew....this kind of phrase is very good Hebrew.

Kasper wrote:Although I've said about all I can say on this topic, I do want to point out that the addition of the word 'thing' is often a helpful tool for translation, but it is no more than that. So to ask 'deliver us from what evil thing?" is deceptive and not proper translation.

I was not trying to use deception to make you see it my(?) way. (I know you didn't say that I did.) I don't see it as deception but as an unavoidable weakness of translating. Something is lost in translation.English needs a noun after the adjective. Just like in the example Kopio gave.

Kasper wrote:The fact that in the excerpt from exodus the dutch bible translates it as 'their slavery' only adds to the ambiguity here. Would you translate tou~ ponhrou~ as 'his evil' or 'the evil' , or not translate the article at all because it is (arguably) only used to indicate that the adjective is used substantively?

My point in quoting that was not to suggest that every articular substantive adjective has to be translated with a possesive pronoun, but I wanted to show that the article makes the substantive more definite.Not any kind of slavery but this particular slavery. Therefore I think that "their slavery" (or "this slavery")is a good translation. However, "his evil (+noun") does not make much sense, but "the evil (+noun") does.It clearly indicates the definitiveness.

Kasper wrote:I don't think we'll end up agreeing, although I must admit that I have very much amended my original position. Let's say just the phrase is ambiguous.